Given the Supreme court's latest ruling, I wonder if this will still be able to happen in America? What are your thoughts?

You'd better believe it. If we can't somehow reverse this trend, we'll see the US become a police state in our lifetimes.

I cannot make this point any clearer with out using profanity. Avert your eyes, profanity in use

She should have shot the officers. The have no gotdamned right to do that, especially if their is no threat to any one!

No ammo, I can guarantee that they could have apprehended her with out fight, and don't give me that "She could have loaded the gun,". She didn't even have a speed loader, those officers should feel lucky they made it out alive.

Try that shit in Texas I dare them. Uncalled for, and no you cant have my gun.


Officer "Relax mam, I don't want to have to hurt you." - This is after they beat the crap out of her. Whos rights did these pricks take an oath for?

Personally if she wanted to stay there, let her. Its her fault if she gets caught in the weather.

This was about something else. If I am an officer I would not risk my life to arrest a person like this, I would tell my bosses to .. you get the point.

Epic win for the constitution that day. Epic win all around.

Paper, Ideas are only as strong as those who fight and die for them.

Friggin' American's and your friggin' guns.

I love you guys, but seriously, take a leaf out of the Macgyver book.

@Maze:
The point isn't about guns per se. It's about the violation of supposedly guaranteed rights. When one of the first ten amendments is blatantly trampled by people sworn to uphold the law, it's really not much of a stretch to think that the other nine could follow.

It looks like the weapons were returned later because of legal pressure by the NRA. Its a rough situation. The police started ignoring personal liberties in favor of "saftey" by over reacting to looters stealing guns. The good thing is that the legal system still works and this isolated incident was corrected. I'd like to find out more about if any of these people pursue charges in light of the new Supreme Court ruling. Its still pretty rough if its happening to you though. I really couldn't say how I would react if the police came knocking and tried to confiscate my property. It probably wouldn't end well...

Apparently there is a class action lawsuit over the events. New Orleans tried to have the suit thrown out recently, but the judge refused. According to this news release (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.martial-arts/2005-09/msg04050.html) the cops you see tackling the elderly woman were California Highway Patrol officers who were visiting, not regular New Orleans police. Yeah, they overreacted but to look at it from their point of view for a moment, they don't know if they're going to be dealing with some anarchist nutjob who thinks its okay to shoot cops or not.

I think that given the recent Supreme Court ruling if a city tried to do NOW what New Orleans did it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional. However, remember that at that time handgun bans were perfectly legal in several cities and the Supreme Court even now has maintained that the state has the right to regulate what and how many firearms you can own.

One thing about this story that has me wondering is whether these people were asked (on camera or off) to present proof of gun ownership and couldn't do it. That would change the story tremendously, I think. Yeah, so what if your grandma gave you a nice pistol? If you don't have a permit for it, it's an illegal weapon and the cops were right to confiscate and destroy it.

Hey Gundam, if you are a visiting cop during a crisis and going into strange people's houses to evict them, well tough shit.

First job as a cop, know the law. Second job as a cop, try to obey and enforce the law. You can't go into people's homes and evict them. You can't take away private guns on private property. I don't care if this is marshall law bullshit, we have precedents based on "due process" and posse comitatus forbid using federal troops, but that isn't obeyed anymore. I don't care if there is a fire or hurricane, you should be allowed to remain on private property and the police should not be allowed to tresspass. They should have the burden of proving your life is endanger or others lifes are at risk. This woman posed no threat and unless you can prove she would have died if she stayed, (which you cannot), it is a free choice we no longer have in this country thanks to Bush and his cronys.

One thing about this story that has me wondering is whether these people were asked (on camera or off) to present proof of gun ownership and couldn't do it. That would change the story tremendously, I think. Yeah, so what if your grandma gave you a nice pistol? If you don't have a permit for it, it's an illegal weapon and the cops were right to confiscate and destroy it.

Louisiana state law does not require gun owners to have permits. You only need a permit for concealed carry.

Who is behind alienating gun owners and making them feel like 2nd class citizens?

Who defines "gun culture" as a paranoid subclass?

Who is behind erasing America's long historical record of firearms ownership?

Who is against gun ownership now?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Who is behind alienating gun owners and making them feel like 2nd class citizens?
Who defines "gun culture" as a paranoid subclass?
Who is behind erasing America's long historical record of firearms ownership?
Who is against gun ownership now?



Obama... thats obvious. Which is why I have know Idea who I am voting for. Both of the asses in the running are puppet p0litocos.

>> ^Hanns:
@Maze:
The point isn't about guns per se. It's about the violation of supposedly guaranteed rights. When one of the first ten amendments is blatantly trampled by people sworn to uphold the law, it's really not much of a stretch to think that the other nine could follow.


I sure wish you'd explain that to the FCC and all the dumbfucks who support censorship.

Reason why I have a gun as told by Fred Reed: "...most intruders want chiefly to steal things. Think a little. At two a.m., you hear a noise and turn on the lights. You find two guys with knives. You can now identify them. They have knives. Focus on this point. Knives, and you can identify them. Do you see where this leads? "

>> ^HadouKen24:

Louisiana state law does not require gun owners to have permits. You only need a permit for concealed carry.


Interesting. How do they track stolen weapons? If you don't have a bill of sale, I guess you'd just be screwed?

I did a little more digging into Louisiana gun law. Found this great link which designates procedures for law enforcement officers when seizing and disposing of weapons: http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97862

The officers appear to have violated section D of the code here which requires them to return the firearm if they can't prove it was used in violation of any law. I think what New Orleans will argue in court is that there was in fact a law put in place by the mayor that effectively outlawed all firearms in the city. Of course, those suing will argue this is a violation of constitutional rights. However, I'm wondering if New Orleans will counter with the fact that it is perfectly constitutional to declare areas such as schools "firearm free zones" and that the mayor merely extended that zone temporarily to include the whole city due to the emergency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#Hurricane_Katrina

Interesting clip to point to when advocates yell about gun ownership being a right in order to help keep the government in check.

I'd argue that argument hasn't had a leg to stand on since antebellum days.

^EXAXTLYMUNDO

I hate the Second Amendment, and I hate guns. But I love having the right to tell the government to obey me, since I'm supposed to be running it. So I'd stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a redneck gun owner if it meant the difference between a society of law and a dictatorship.

As I've said, it's too late for America to revolt against its government. Far too late.

Britain, will you take us back? I like the metric system...will drive on the left side of the road...and spell "color" and "favorite" with "ou".

Orwellian police state. Sad. Very sad.

Obama will try to take away all us honest citizen's guns. Boooo.

I've always been an advocate of the second amendment for a lot of reasons, such as, I've heard there are fewer violent crimes committed in areas where more people have guns (don't rob someone who may shoot you). Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If no one had guns, we'd all be talking about knife control next, then fingernail-clipper control, etc.

I think it is time for a revision of the second amendment. I agree that no one should have their rights violated and I will stand up for anyone's right to bare arms, but I think there's more to a lot of these stories. First of all, why would you be transporting a LOADED gun (as the gentlemen in boat story mentioned). If there's no bullets it become MUCH more safe to transport and virtually eliminates all possibility of an accident. Most states require this to legally transport a firearm. As far as the old lady, why would you get out a gun with the cops? That's just dumb, even if they overreacted.

Now, on to the second amendment. As Penn and Teller mentioned in their appropriately named cable show, the founding fathers added the second amendment to the constitution because they needed their guns for the American Revolution and wanted to make sure we'd have ours the next time we need a revolution. We need to consider this, however. We no longer fight with muskets and military weapons are no linger identical to hunting weapons like they were then. Instead, we use tanks, aircraft, and M16's for fighting. If we are to ensure we have an armed population so that a revolution could take place, isn't that the kind of hardware we would need to accomplish the task? That's great that you have a .22 rifle, I have a tank. Doesn't matter if it's 10,000 to one, the tank wins. The only way the American people could current rebel against their government at this point would be massive and sudden assassinations (kill everyone in Washington and starting working your way down) or if the military split and helped to fight as well.

In conclusion, I think gun control is rubbish. It doesn't work. I think the second amendment is also broken, however, and we need some better way to prevent a hostile military takeover. Lastly, I will defend anyone's right to bare arms, so long as they follow the laws of the land they live in. If the laws are unjust, change them, don't break them.

Please, I welcome any comments.

>> ^rottenseed:
Britain, will you take us back? I like the metric system...will drive on the left side of the road...and spell "color" and "favorite" with "ou".


Sure, forgive and forget and all that, and as long as you promise to moan about the weather, start all conversations in a bumbling manner and about the weather, and love curry.

>> ^Kerotan:
Sure, forgive and forget and all that, and as long as you promise to moan about the weather, start all conversations in a bumbling manner and about the weather, and love curry.

Already love curry, Brit TV, and can understand the Welsh, who do I talk to about sponsoring me a visa. :-D

The people you clearly need to worry about are the ones that when asked by the police if they have guns answer "yes I do officer"

The moral of the story is to conceal your weapons apparently.

LONG, sorry.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I've always been an advocate of the second amendment for a lot of reasons, such as, I've heard there are fewer violent crimes committed in areas where more people have guns (don't rob someone who may shoot you). Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If no one had guns, we'd all be talking about knife control next, then fingernail-clipper control, etc.


Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)

Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed. Seems to work there.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.

And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?


>> ^Aemaeth:
We need to consider this, however. We no longer fight with muskets and military weapons are no linger identical to hunting weapons like they were then.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)


>> ^Aemaeth:
In conclusion, I think gun control is rubbish. It doesn't work.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

w.

Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)
Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed.

The U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes” and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose during the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder. The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average. These numbers are likely low because one of their more violent cities, Baltimore, failed to report their crime levels.

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also.

Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

All of the above facts are taken from http://www.gunfacts.info and each one of them is cited by an independent academic, scientific or government study.

wwwwwwwwwwwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
boooooo hoooooo

you guys love reasons to bitch and moan don't you?

"Who is behind alienating gun owners and making them feel like 2nd class citizens?

Who defines "gun culture" as a paranoid subclass?

Who is behind erasing America's long historical record of firearms ownership?

Who is against gun ownership now?



Obama... thats obvious. Which is why I have know Idea who I am voting for. Both of the asses in the running are puppet p0litocos."

Thank you gentlemen, for trying to get the idiots who think Obama's shit is not the same as the rest, to wake the fuck up.-THEY ALL SUCK HARD DONKEY DICKS! -Unfortunately it is painfully obvious from the ratios of for and against here on the VS, that the asshole becoming president, may be a reality-The only thing that may stop it, is that the idea of having a Black man in a white house, THE white house, that may be a bit too shocking for a large segment of the voting population of this country.

But, like Xax mentions, yeah, we screwed the pooch on doing anything about the NWO, and will have to take the power exercised against us all, not just the US, as it comes, one on one with the enforcers, who are citizens like us-MONEY will make a man do asenine things, the pressure being placed upon the common folk, by the very assholes that put these other assholes in positions of power, until the day a President is no longer needed.....(suspended and never again to be re-instated, U.S. constitution)It's our own damn fault for believing lies lies lies all these years, and for listening with ears that don't hear, and watching with eyes that don't see for so many years, and teaching children to do the same...(most of the sifters on the Bandwagon of any candidate, are those children. DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED DIPSHITZ I like to call em, because it's fucking true)-Yer own damn fault.

When the fan shit hits, it will hit hard and the duration will offer no chance for recovery....we got a few years though, start saving knowledge, ammo, and tradable goods....Money will be useless, and probably
precious metals as well.....
(dissappear to B.C. for me.....SEE YA!!)

Fuck Obama, Fuck Hillary, Fuck McCain-Fuck them all, and up, and the horses whose backs they rode to be able to pollute the consciousness of a Nation of sincere for the most part, common folks......KILL THEM ALL, PLEASE....and loot their winter homes, summer homes, rape and pillage the Empire, and erase them from the planet again....

>> ^wraith:
Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?

Of course. You can find "evidence" to support pretty much whatever you want to say. You've already heard quite a bit from Wynder, but if you need more just google "guns reduce crime" and read any of the 447,000 hits on that. It's difficult to compare country for country because we have such different cultures. Unfortunately, we have a culture that is more accepting of violent crime than others, so we tend to experience more violent crime.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.
And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?

I've heard that the exact number of times I've heard that about getting SHOT thirty times. If you have to reload, it's not an accident. Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL of all guns. I believe that you should be QUALIFIED to own a gun and undertake the necessary gun safety training. If your kids can get into your guns, you should be held criminally responsible for accidents. Lock them up, don't keep them loaded, don't teach them how to use them until they know how to do it safely, use extra safeties, etc. My father owned about a half dozen guns while I was growing up. I first shot a gun when I was four, but before then it was firmly impressed on my mind that guns are DANGEROUS if not handled properly. I knew that I had better NEVER get them out for any reason. My father never treated them like a toy, so I never thought that I should.

At this point, I own ZERO guns. I have two small boys and don't feel I have the means to safely store them in a way that will keep everyone safe, so I don't.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)

Sorry, I don't think Michael Moore has a terrific corner on truth. I also don't think the opinion "nut-jobs" matters much. My point still stands. I certainly don't think either of those options would be good for fighting a revolution because where would we all live when it was over? Your point is fallacious, I'm afraid. If the question was, should people own tanks, my answer would be maybe. We would need a way to properly police and control it, the same way we do with guns.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

Didn't you already ask for evidence? I agree, the laws don't work, but it's because they are built on a flawed concept. I'd be interested to see how many violent crimes are committed by individuals who follow all gun laws versus breaking them in the process.


Consider something for a moment: let's say we buy into the fear-inspiring arguments that are presented that Bush cancels the November election, disbands congress, and declares himself president for life. What would you do? Would you live in a police state for the rest of your life? Would you pick up rocks and start throwing them at tanks? Would you take a gun and vainly fight the tanks? Don't we need some kind of way to even the odds, so our "by the people, for the people" government and way of life is protected by and the for the same, instead of by permission, for the man?

They take your freedom of speech, but taking your guns away is crossing the line. Because that's what will fix all your problems, more guns among the people.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Who is behind erasing America's long historical record of firearms ownership?

Oh and what a glorious historical record it was been. Right up there with slaughtering all the indians and slavery. Wait what? Testing the A-bomb on innocent civilians? Nah that barely made the Top10...

I'm confused, the rest of the Bill of the Rights went away with the signing of the PATRIOT act, is anyone really surprised that the 2nd amendment was ignored when it was considered inconvenient, years later?

As for the "blame Obama" set, you should read up on his actual position -- he agrees there's an individual right to bear arms, and said so before and after the Supreme Court decision.

He's no NRA member to be sure, but he's also not who ordered this to happen -- that was a Republican from Texas, who was endorsed by the NRA, and is defended by them still.

I swear, if a Republican Senator came to your house and shot your dog, some of you would cry foul about how the Democrats are to blame.

The best thing about this video is that it proves the second amendment is utterly useless. If the government ever becomes a dictatorship and is supported by the military, your little pea-shooters will not help you.

Of course what happened to the people in this video is repulsive. Nobody should ever be treated that way while the second amendment stands. I will support your constitutional right to bear arms as long as it is part of the constitution, but if it ever gets properly amended, I will cheer.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm confused, the rest of the Bill of the Rights went away with the signing of the PATRIOT act, is anyone really surprised that the 2nd amendment was ignored when it was considered inconvenient, years later?
As for the "blame Obama" set, you should read up on his actual position -- he agrees there's an individual right to bear arms, and said so before and after the Supreme Court decision.
He's no NRA member to be sure, but he's also not who ordered this to happen -- that was a Republican from Texas, who was endorsed by the NRA, and is defended by them still.
I swear, if a Republican Senator came to your house and shot your dog, some of you would cry foul about how the Democrats are to blame.


I think the point here was that Obama is the candidate in favor of tighter gun control. He's not as bad as Sen. Feinstein of California who thinks guns are the devil, but he doesn't seem to be on speaking terms with the NRA either.

>>Doesn't matter if it's 10,000 to one, the tank wins.

If it was 10,000 to one, the tank loses. How many shots, exactly, do you think a tank carries??

Even at 100 to 1, if the people rebelled, that would be 300m Americans vs 3m. If you have a heavily armed populace, "democracy" will win. If you have a state with severe gun control (like, oh for irony's sake... Nazi Germany) then the government can repress the masses.

The 2nd Amendment basically guarantees that if the government gets too far out of control, the populace can correct it. It's sort of part of the checks and balances system.

Hi Wynder, thanks for the reply.

(This is even LONGER, sorry)

A few points:

1. What do those studies mean by "Gun Control (Laws)"? What constitutes the "toughest"/"most restrictive" gun control laws in the US? Does it mean "no private citizen may own a gun" or does it mean "you have to wait six days before you can buy military grade weaponry"?
Generally speaking, you and I mean different things by "restrictive gun control laws". Furthermore, I must doubt the effectiveness of gun control laws in one city/state if there are no or less restrictive laws in adjacent states without a customs border in between. If Washington, D.C. imposed a ban on selling firearms, people would just need to drive to Virginia to still be able to buy one and noone would be able to check them for guns on the way back. (Just an example, I don't know the gun laws in Virginia or the D. of C.)

2. If you say that studies (seem to) show that "Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control", what do you say about all the countries with tougher gun control laws and lower violent crime rates? Is the US that much more violent than any other country in the world that you archieve about 3 times the murder rate of one of the most densly populated countries in the world (Japan, your own numbers) in one of the most sparsely populated industrialised countries of the world only because your open gun ownership actually DECREASES violent crime levels?

3. "Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also."

Unless these suicides were commited with a gun and can be considered a "violent crime", I don't see the significance.


4. "Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen." Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

It's intereseting how the text you quote there first tells us that "Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned." and then lists the increase in various areas of violent crimes without giving any indication about the use of firearms in these crimes.

The picture looks a little different if you take fireamrs use into account.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
"The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population, and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99. Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage."

Hi Aemaeth!

Just a comment to what I guess is the main point you are trying to make:

"Consider something for a moment: let's say we buy into the fear-inspiring arguments that are presented that Bush cancels the November election, disbands congress, and declares himself president for life. What would you do? Would you live in a police state for the rest of your life? Would you pick up rocks and start throwing them at tanks? Would you take a gun and vainly fight the tanks? Don't we need some kind of way to even the odds, so our "by the people, for the people" government and way of life is protected by and the for the same, instead of by permission, for the man?"

OK. So what do you think the US-populace should do?
Do you really think that a people must always have the military means to overthrow their own goverment and their own army if they want to? Don't you think that in the times of a mechanized military, nuclear and biological weapons this has become a moot point? Tell me, how WOULD you fight a Tank, an attack helicotper, a strategic bomber, a cruise missile? I don't think that an armed revolution by the US-populace against the US-military can be won. And I don't think that gun-ownership has anything to do with the outcome.

Do you have any evidence supporting this?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I've got nothing against one world government, as long as it's democratic and respects people's rights.

If it's locked up and unloaded how the fuck will it be of any use when a burglar comes? Especially if your entire residence is within 10 seconds' run from the front door?

Looking at firearm-related-crimes only to justify the UK's gun laws is foolish because firearms also deter unarmed criminals. The overall violent crime rate in the UK has risen a great deal since the ban, as it has in each US locality that banned guns.

I don't think that an armed revolution by the US-populace against the US-military can be won.


I don't think the military would have the balls/foolishness to fight the public if it came to 250 million vs. 1 million. Mass desertion would ensue.

Wow, lots to respond to here.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Doesn't matter if it's 10,000 to one, the tank wins.
If it was 10,000 to one, the tank loses. How many shots, exactly, do you think a tank carries??
Even at 100 to 1, if the people rebelled, that would be 300m Americans vs 3m. If you have a heavily armed populace, "democracy" will win. If you have a state with severe gun control (like, oh for irony's sake... Nazi Germany) then the government can repress the masses.
The 2nd Amendment basically guarantees that if the government gets too far out of control, the populace can correct it. It's sort of part of the checks and balances system.

I hear what you're saying, but think about it: a full military battalion versus whatever number of civilians we're talking about. Forget air force, biological, whatever. You really think untrained, undisciplined civilians could stand up to any of that without the same firepower?

>> ^jwray:
If it's locked up and unloaded how the fuck will it be of any use when a burglar comes? Especially if your entire residence is within 10 seconds' run from the front door?

First of all, I don't think guns make very good means for home protection. I have heard before that more people are shot by their own guns during home invasions than by any other firearms.

>> ^wraith:
OK. So what do you think the US-populace should do?

I honestly don't know yet, but I don't think the spirit of the second amendment is alive and well today. As far as the 300mil vs. 3mil, let's be honest. We don't know how this would all work out. In the American revolution there were Americans who remained loyal to England (tories). What if it was only 50 million Americans who were willing to revolt? The fact is I don't think any of this matters. What does matter is that it COULD happen and if it DID, would we be prepared?

Even in irony, Godwin took his sweet time with this thread.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Doesn't matter if it's 10,000 to one, the tank wins.
If it was 10,000 to one, the tank loses. How many shots, exactly, do you think a tank carries??
Even at 100 to 1, if the people rebelled, that would be 300m Americans vs 3m. If you have a heavily armed populace, "democracy" will win. If you have a state with severe gun control (like, oh for irony's sake... Nazi Germany) then the government can repress the masses.
The 2nd Amendment basically guarantees that if the government gets too far out of control, the populace can correct it. It's sort of part of the checks and balances system.

I HATE people who waive around the 2nd Amendment as if it gives them this absolute right to have whatever weaponry they want without any logical discussion entered into 'Hey, that's our constitution you're talking about boy'.

BUT.

This situation is over and above that. What there is here is laws stating that you CAN HAVE THOSE WEAPONS... you're allowed to have them, they are yours you bought them legally. Now, in a natural disaster the government tries to come in and just take them away, or worse, destroy them... things that are yours, things that they have no good reason to take (other than fear, it all comes down to fear... 'oh bugger, we've got a lot of people running around looting etc. and all this time we've allowed them all to be armed... crud'). So this gets an upvote from me just because regardless of these being weapons, regardless of me hating the idea of a country where so many people are armed like this, regardless of the comment in this of 'I had my bible and I had my gun so I was ok' speaking to the root cause of what's currently wrong in the states... I still upvote.

What was done to these people is still very wrong.

Not only did they violate the 2nd amendment, they also violated the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

correct. And there is no provision in the constitution that would abridge the 4th amendment in times of emergency/disaster.

ShakaUVM you just proved Godwin's Law.

Still waiting for an example where gun ownership by the citizens meant oppressive governments don't come into power or even held in check.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Still waiting for an example where gun ownership by the citizens meant oppressive governments don't come into power or even held in check.


"In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

If Britain had succeeded in disarming the colonies, Britain would have won the American Revolution.
Also Rome easily committed genocide against Carthage after tricking them into giving up their weapons (ca. the Third Punic War)

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.